Vampires in Wesnoth

[Yeran]

I think lichdom changes ones personality, because the soul is lost at the transformation. As a Lich doesn't have any strong feelings (besides hate) or morals - he will do whatever fits him. So he might keep all his former memories and parts of his character, but in general anything good is destroyed in the process of becoming an undead. That does not however mean every Lich will try to destroy his surroundings. In Northern Rebirth the protagonists even ally with two Lichs, but these never fight for some greater good but strictly for their personal advantage. Nobody with half a brain would ever rely on a Lich, as a being without morals is fast to betray you, as soon as you are no longer needed.
With Necromancers its similar, as regular use of the dark art and contact with ghosts and the like will damage your soul. Slowly hate will become your dominant feeling. And there will never be a person of a pure heart using necromancy, as denying the dead their final peace even to save the world is a egoistic deed after all.
Thats my opinion at least, I know IftU uses another approach.


Then again our vampires wouldn't even be undead if we use our faery magic explanation, so we we free to think about how we want them to be. I would say they need intention or be abnormaly careless to become a vampire and unlike Lichs they can keep large parts of their personality. Most of time this won't help however, as their need for blood will cause them to be outcasts and its hard to keep morals high if most people hate/fear you. The evil vampire would be some kind of self-fullfilling prophecy.

As far as gameplay goes they wouldn't need most of the abilities mentioned here. I don't see for example while they should get Nightstalk while Thieves and the like dont. You could probably give it to them after some consideration, but its hardly a must. I wouldn't grant them the plague ability either, as thats an undead thing and we'd have a hard time explaining why they are rare if they could multiply their numbers that easy. You could grant them the Skirmisher ability, but personally I think they dont need that one, as Sylphs dont get skirmish either.

I would rather work with their faery heritage to explain their abilities. They would using raw force of life for their spells and thats one important reason why they drink blood. Those who decide to stop using magic at all would need way less blood that way. They could fly like all faery and they'd have a special bound to creatures of the nature, mostly hunting ones. The typical wesnoth vampire might indeed have some bat allies, or maybe some wolves.

So my version of a vampire would be rare and mysterious, feared by a grand majority and most of the time living alone in the nature. They could be of any alignment, but most would lose their morals over time.
Depending on their goals they might very well be tempted to ally with a necromancer or some raging orc tribes.

[solsword]

I agree with your positions, Yeran, and I like your ideas about the vampires, especially since they result in a nice mystique. So here's one reasonably complete take on vampires (I'm imagining this could go in a race or unit description, although it's probably too detailed at the moment) based on the ideas presented here (I'll stress that this is *my* take, I'd encourage others to post their own so that we can take a good look at the differences):

[quote=Vampire Description]
Vampires are magic users who have dabbled in the darker side of faery magic. Whether because they tried experiments beyond their ken or because they intentionally performed forbidden rituals, these monstrous beings have developed a cursed link with nature--a perverted form of the bond shared by elven druids and enchantresses. Rather than giving them the ability to heal others, this bond sucks the vitality from them, causing them to wither away and perish in a ghastly manner. Their only recourse is to drink the blood of living beings, stealing the life energy of others to replenish what the bond drains from them. The curse has several other effects, the most prominent of which is that normally life-sustaining sunlight is a bane to these creatures. The curse also changes the attitudes of the victim, giving them a craving for blood and slowly twisting their morals until they become utterly chaotic and evil. Some rumors claim that exceptionally strong-willed people can resist this effect, although these are disputed.

The cursed faery power that flows through the vampires is not completely detrimental, however. In fact, the various abilities that vampires gain through the curse make them extremely deadly. The simplest ability that vampires have is the ability to hoard life energy. By draining the blood from multiple victims, a vampire gains supernatural strength and speed, and can even regenerate its own body. Vampires that are practiced enough can even use their extra life energy to cast powerful spells, although usually only elven vampires have enough control over fey magic to achieve this. The curse also grants vampires a twisted link to the natural world, and they are know to commune with and control various predatory and nocturnal species, including bats, wolves, and even bears.

{Vampires exist among all races that can control (or at least attempt to control) faery magic, including orcs, humans and elves.} However, elven vampires are by far the most fearsome, because of their naturally long lifespan and sophisticated intellect. While a human vampire may lurk about an area and kill dozens of people over its lifetime, it will eventually die of old age (accounts vary as to whether the curse accelerates aging, or slows it, but unlike liches, vampires are not immortal). On the other hand, an elven vampire can plague an area for centuries, fleeing into hiding until forgetful humans refer to it as a mere myth, only to strike again. Being more in-touch with faery magic, elven vampires also have greater control over the powers of the curse.
[/quote]

First, I know that this is poorly written; it's meant to be a more natural exposition of how I'd like to see vampires in Wesnoth than the academic discussions we've been having. Since this isn't really intended to go anywhere just yet, I don't mind comments, but I may not do anything about them.

Second, about the part between {}: I'm not really familiar with the Weslore on this subject. Other people in this thread have suggested that humans can at least dabble in faery magic, but what about orcs, dwarves, and all the other races? How uniquely elven is faery magic, and does it make any sense for other races to be able to use it to even a rudimentary degree? Would it break canon to claim that although humans can't *use* faery magic, they can *try* to do so, and such experiments sometimes result in vampirism? This wouldn't quite justify the outbreak of vampirism on the old continent, though, because if something failed every time, you wouldn't see *that* many people trying it. Of course, that event is purely speculative in any case.


Ultimately, I think that whoever puts vampires into a high-quality campaign (or short story, for that matter, considering the drive to get some more Weslore out there) gets to have the say about how exactly they turn out. I don't think that this forum should serve the purpose of a "high council of Weslore" that all campaign authors must consult if they want their campaigns to agree with canon--at least not to the extent of extending canon beyond its existing scope.

However, I do think that a hypothetical description like the one I gave is a useful source of inspiration (along with the rest of this thread, of course).

[Aethaeryn]

My main (in terms of usage in campaign) problem is your view of them being mortal. Rather, I think that the only thing that could stop them is either starvation or being killed. This does not make them fully immortal (since true immortals wouldn't starve or die in battle), but I think that as they drain life forces to stay alive, they'll be able to live indefinitely, possibly milemnia, to the point where it seems they're immortal if they're not quite immortal. If their lifespan is definite, the original vampires (those who become vampires by means other than vampire bites) will probably be closest to immortal (most pure blood), and the magical ones of those virtually indistinguishable from liches in lifespan. In fact, I'd see vampires and liches on the Old Continent as rivals, waging wars for thousands of years after the place was all-but-abandoned by humans and other non-monsters.

I do think, though, that the vampires that manage to live a very long time do not look much like their original form (if you have a unit line, I'd assume that the lvl 3 and 4 don't look much like standard humanoids at all). It's similar to dark magic and becoming a lich. Similarly, I think a lvl 5 lich (older than an ancient lich) would be a demilich, with barely a skeletal form at all.

My other big issue is your use of the term "evil" like that. As I said before, it is possible to not be an evil vampire, per se, but rather a corrupt vampire. There is a big distinction. A corrupt being could be one that is twisted and forced into a lifestyle. This is a morally weak being, one who would put its survival ahead of the survival of its peers by feeding off of them rather than starving (but really, it would be tough if you were in their shoes to starve in a very painful way). They might not necessarily have as evil aims as the typical lich, they're just surviving. I imagine vampires come up with plenty of moral justifications to their despicable behavior.

Of course, they're still social outcasts and often lumped with Undead. Some more evil and magically-inclined vampires may have some limited necromantic abilities, which would really make them rival liches in many aspects. I would think that vampires think themselves superior to liches. After all, vampires still have a body, and their body is being destroyed from the inside out instead of from the outside in. This means that while the liches are ugly and decaying, vampires can at least keep the appearance of their pre-death beauty (Haldric in TRoW thinks the vampire lady is beautiful, for instance). On the other hand, liches are really more durable and magically-powerful, and I think some liches may commit genocide in order to combat vampires: literally starving them of their food.

I will probably wind up creating both a lvl 5 demilich and a line (or two?) of vampire units for Thunderstone 3, but that's a bit off...

[solsword]

I guess we disagree about vampires a bit then, which is perfectly fine. And if you're creating the vampires for a campaign, then you've got the creative freedom to do what you want with them. I'll give you the reasons for my opinions, but I recognize the futility of trying to fully reconcile differences of opinion, especially as to what is cool or has a good mystique. So I'll say this straight up: I like your concept of vampires in a lot of ways, and the concept seems internally consistent, as well as consistent with Wesnoth canon. My only disagreements with it are matters of opinion, and I wouldn't be sad to see it become canon.

Now, the reasons why I chose different qualities for vampires in my description above:

1. On the issue of immortality, there are actually several reasons for my choice of mortal vampires:

First, it's a departure from modern vampire myths, which gives these vampires a distinctive Wesnothian flair (other distinctions, such as the fact that they're cursed by faery magic rather than being undead, are simply differences in *justification*, and come across as simply a way to shoehorn vampires into Wesnoth). I like the idea of Wesnothian vampires that are *noticeably* different from real-world vampires (but it's okay if you don't (and it's doubly okay if you think that the existing differences are enough)).

Second, it doesn't forfeit the timelessness of vampires completely: elven vampires can still persist for centuries. It's like a bait-and-switch: you remove some of the vampire's fearsomeness by making them die of old age, only to add it right back in because some of them are elves, who live so long that it makes little difference, especially to a human. As a bonus, you get an important distinction between human and elven vampires, and one that makes the elven variety much scarier. That just makes the concept of a vampire more complex and therefore more interesting.

Third: Wesnoth already has ancient beings of timeless evil: the liches (in fact, it has two such beings, if you count the demonic matrices). In my opinion, it's much more interesting to have the vampires be mortal than to add another check box to the list of eternal evil beings. I appreciate the romantic (in the literary sense) notions associated with immortality and vampires, as well as the potential awesomeness of vampires and liches locked in an eternal struggle (although this begs the question of where the vampires in this scenario get their blood...). However, I simply think that these advantages in terms of potential plots are fairly cliche, and that the freshness associated with mortal vampires would be more interesting.

Finally (on immortality): mortal vampires are long-lived, evil beings who hunger for the lives of others, and who are presumably psychotic. They also know some magic (perhaps even necromancy, as you mentioned), and in between trips to the local village to consume the blood of the peasants, one can imagine they might become bored. Or power-hungry. Or both. And thus we can see that the concept of a vampire-lich is probably at the forefront of many vampire's minds. Is such a thing possible? To have eternal life would certainly give them the ability to fully exploit the potential of their bond... And they could use the time so much more imaginatively than those pathetic human mages who manage to attain lichhood!

I'll admit that I just thought of vampire-liches while reading your post, but I think that they'd be pretty cool, and the fact that the some mortal vampires would strive to attain lichhood adds another dimension to their character.


2. On the issue of evil. I appreciate the distinction between vampires as corrupt (they started with perfectly good minds that were subverted by their hunger to feed on flesh and now they are psychotic) and vampires as evil (they started with perfectly good (or perhaps not so good) minds, but those minds themselves, rather than breaking down and becoming psychotic, have been *warped* to be evil (although still intelligent)). The first evokes a lot more sympathy for the vampires, and is closer to a relativistic and blame-free moral approach to life. At some level, the vampires *can't help themselves*, and their morals are not *evil* per say, it's just that they've become psychotic from the torment of their (magically induced) base urges. The second is a much more absolutist moral position: it more readily acknowledges the existence of *true evil* in the world and makes it clear that whatever the vampire used to be, it is now something that is evil, pure and simple. There's little sense in which you have sympathy for the *really evil* vampire, and there's also little thought of redeeming it. Note that in my description, I purposefully left the door open for good vampires, but stated that they'd have to be truly exceptional people to resist the moral corruption (not simply base desires) associated with the curse. This puts such a person in the same position as Frodo in [acronym=Lord of the Rings, dummy!]LotR[/acronym] (no, that's not a Wesnoth campaign ), which to my mind is more evocative and compelling than the much more common character who has to resist base urges. To me, the base urges-type vampire is a bit of a cop-out, because it avoids confronting the issue of evil head-on, and hand-waves a bit about whether the *person* part of the vampire is good or bad. I prefer the mind corruption-type vampire because it confronts the [reader|player] with the concept of absolute or irrevocable evil, and because it makes it clear that the *person* part of the vampire has actually become evil.

I'm not sure that I've made myself clear, and I know that you may simply not agree with me, but hopefully you can now understand a bit more about my reasons for choosing certain qualities for my *ideal* Wesnothian vamipre.

And because I really want to beat this horse to death: there's no pressure. if you're designing a campaign with vampires in it, make them how *you* want them to be, now how "the people who posted on the forum thread about Wesnoth vampires" want them to be. I'm not trying to encourage you to make your vampires in a way that you don't think is cool, I'm trying to change what you think is cool .

[Aethaeryn]

I had a long, elaborate response typed out, but my computer froze and I had to restart. I thus lost most of my response to point #1.

1. On the issue of immortality, there are actually several reasons for my choice of mortal vampires...

It comes down to me setting Thunderstone 3 partially on the Old Continent (no elves). The campaign begins before TRoW, and most of the campiagn takes place after IftU (which in turn is after UtBS). I simply want something other than a lich to last the several thousand years from the prehistory to the futuristic era. Your ideas are simply incompatible with the intended plot; it's a stylistic decision. (No vampire-liches, please.)

2. On the issue of evil. ...

If you want to get truly philosophical and look at it from a binary good/evil viewpoint, then the vampire that was "corrupted" was evil by nature at the starting point, and remains evil. Nothing really notable or special there. That being said, a vampire is evil because it is selfish by the very definition of its actions: it is valuing extending its life over the life of others, and cutting short lives in order to achieve these means. Some vampires might be less evil than others, but there cannot be a purely good vampire as vampirism is murdering by nature (and a very selfish form of killing, too). A vampire is not accepting his or her's death, and instead is trying to basically be a deity.

That being said, no evil is irrevocable and irredeemable. A vampire character can change its ways just like any other character, it would just be extremely improbable. Of course, a good vampire wouldn't last very long: it'd starve. Odds are though, that it'd sacrifice itself (suicide mission to save the day?) in turning good though, since being selfless would be fitting for someone who selfishly extended their life. Thus, a vampire antihero is more likely than a truly good vampire. Still does bad things, but is a protagonist anyway.

EDIT: So no, being good and being a vampire are pretty much mutually exclusive. And focusing on the corruption aspect doesn't make the vampire blame-free for his or her actions: the vampire could "easily" just choose to starve itself and die a painful death, turning into faerie fire, rather than to murder.

Of course, maybe this corruption story makes the evil creatures a little bit sympathetic, but is that wrong? Kill the vampires, but pity them too. Killing vampires is merciful.

[solsword]

Thanks. Now I understand the reasons for your positions.

I think we both mostly agree on the evil part as well, you just are more comfortable with a slightly different (more redeemable-seeming) version of the particular evil that is involved in vampires.

As you state, the possibility of a good vampire is mostly academic, because it would starve to death. Of course, if the vampire had willing donors of life-force, and managed to resist the moral taint (or in your case, if there were no moral taint beyond the results of bloodlust) things might be different...

Now it seems like we've got at least one good basis for vampires that is self-consistent and fits into Wesnoth, so this thread has served its primary purpose. Yay! But I'd also like to encourage some others to chime in, because I'm sure there are some ideas about vampires and Wesnoth that we've missed, because there may still be inconsistencies that we haven't thought of, and because this is a thread to generate ideas and inspiration, of which more are/is always better.

[DoorOpener]

Is there any specific reason why vampires in Wesnoth cannot get their necessary blood from animals instead of humanoids? If they could, this might open the door further for the possibility of a "good" vampire - one who decides to drink only the blood of animals and such. This could also involve some personal sacrifice on the part of the vampire. Since the blood he drinks is not "pure" blood, his power/strength/etc. is diminished.

If the vampire has some control over other animals, would this mean he should have some leadership ability or a variation of it? Probably, he should not have the normal leadership ability, but maybe something along those lines - maybe a horde/swarm attack by his minions or something?

Would the vampire's knowledge of faerie magic allow him to learn a "magical" way to obtain blood from his victims - as opposed to simply biting them? Maybe some sort of blood vacuum ability that is able to suck the blood of those within a certain radius of the vampire - thus adding to the dread people have for them. If a magician can use fire out of thin air, why would a vampire not be able to transfer blood magically?

These are not necessarily suggestions for the vampire. Since solsword was looking for more input, I am just trying to stimulate further discussion.

[Tayvar]

I think that wesnoth should leave vampires as they are. the common and authentic vampire are much better then mortal or spirit. here some info, there is no good vampires, its doesn't mean they totally evil. vampires just like other undead have noting to do with demons. vampire and lich have much in common, they both intelligent undead that maintain their souls. eternality is the most basic attribute of vampire, just as drinking blood and having fangs, its also because vampire are undead. vampire cant die from starvation, the only thing he will lose is his self control, becoming frenzy and feed on anyone. vampire must feed on blood and it don't made him more 'evil' then other carnivores and humans that feed on animals. drinking blood in principle didn't force to kill, unlike eating flesh, so its possible that vampire will have blood without killing. generally vampires don't fear death, they living it, yet they didn't want to die(again) and face the unknown, its didn't wise to exchange gift for empty box. the only way to have vampire in MP is to add one unit to every army for balance, also the truely powerful vampire should be level 3. for now wesnoth already have almost perfect vampire in the campaign, though they better be pale and use weapons.

http://www.wesnoth.org/units/1.6/C/Vampire%20Lady.html

[Thrawn]

My view would be similar to Aethaeryn's. Vampires should be immortal, in the sense that they won't die of old age. This is what makes vampires so fascinating, and much more interesting than liches or other creepy things--in becoming vampires, they lose part of their humanity--the need to survive usually overrides whatever moral beliefs they had. So they aren't evil, or even "corrupted" except in the sense that they are baser animals, despite their (in common mythology) wealth, looks, powers, etc.

Also, it means that you can have some that do try and remain good. Maybe they justify their killings--going after criminals, or just going after animals. Perhaps you have some that have a symbiotic relationship w/ a tribe of humans, where in exchange for getting to take blood from humans (w/o killing them) the vampire can feed without being a murderer, in exchange for protecting the village. And then there are some that realize they can't do this, and starve themselves, going somewhere remote, or locking themselves away. [Off-topic--I read a book where a group of christian knights were turned vampires during the crusades, and stayed alive off of christ's "blood" through Eucharistic wine XD]

Where they to be the rivals of liches, I'd assume that they would need more than being vampires---perhaps using legends of their affiliation with bats/wolves to fill out their army, in addition to their created vampire underlings?

[Skrim]

My view would be similar to Aethaeryn's. Vampires should be immortal, in the sense that they won't die of old age. This is what makes vampires so fascinating, and much more interesting than liches or other creepy things--in becoming vampires, they lose part of their humanity--the need to survive usually overrides whatever moral beliefs they had. So they aren't evil, or even "corrupted" except in the sense that they are baser animals, despite their (in common mythology) wealth, looks, powers, etc.

Ditto.

I wholly agree with Aethaeryn's faerie-based version of the Vampire. It provides an interesting and different alternative to the over-used Liches and Necromancers that presently infest the Wesnoth world. It also provides more insights into the so-far quite vague topic of Faerie magic.

And while a Lich could, theoretically, stand in one place and do nothing for a millennium and then come back the same as before, a Vampire would actually need sustenance.

Where they to be the rivals of liches, I'd assume that they would need more than being vampires---perhaps using legends of their affiliation with bats/wolves to fill out their army, in addition to their created vampire underlings?

Interesting.

To create Vampires as Aethaeryn suggested, we'd need a new special attack ability - a "Vampire Bite" status effect that, like poison, drains a unit's HP and eventually 'kills' them and turns them into vampire underlings, unless they are Cured or killed via normal means before that happens.

Well, after a brief talk with Espreon on IRC, I'm modifying my stance very slightly. Instead of strictly being dabbling in the faerie world, any kind of botched interdimensional thing could cause slightly different breeds of vampires. In Espreon's case, it would be the demonic world of Inferno instead of the faerie world. I'd say that you would need an evil (Inferno) or neutral (faerie) world to cause a vampiric transformation, though I doubt a benevolent world would simply let you try to use its energy for bad means. (Perhaps the benevolent world would be more merciful, and not slowly destroy you like the vampires I described.)

Hmm... this point I disagree with. Introducing an evil "Inferno" world and a good counterpart would complicate things even further. We already have the evil-neutral-good trilogy of necromancy, red/silver magic, and white magic in case of human magic, with Faerie magic being completely unrelated but capable of both destruction and healing.
Why would we need another parallel alignment-defined set of branches of magical study?

[Tayvar]

And while a Lich could, theoretically, stand in one place and do nothing for a millennium and then come back the same as before, a Vampire would actually need sustenance.

right, but theoretically vampire could 'sleep' for a millennium, and then awaken very hungry but the same as before.

[Espreon]

Hmm... this point I disagree with. Introducing an evil "Inferno" world and a good counterpart would complicate things even further. We already have the evil-neutral-good trilogy of necromancy, red/silver magic, and white magic in case of human magic, with Faerie magic being completely unrelated but capable of both destruction and healing.
Why would we need another parallel alignment-defined set of branches of magical study?

Uh, the world known as Inferno has already by introduced in IFtU, and there is no known benevolent counterpart to it. Also, esr already read and modified parts of IFtU's text; Inferno is not going anywhere, especially since IFtU will probably be mainlined someday.

[Aethaeryn]

I don't have too much to add to what has been said, but I did the math as to how long a vampire needs to last to be used in my upcoming campaign. Thunderstone 3 could take place anywhere from 2945-3182 YW. (Darn apocalypse screws things up.) Add 200 years (as the lich-lords and the Wesfolk arrived on the Green Isle approx. 200 BW) and Thunderstone takes place anywhere from 3145-3382 years after the beginning of the fall of the Green Isle. Which, rounding because remote dates are even more innacurate, could make Thunderstone 3 take place 3500-4500 after the events in... Thunderstone 3. So, at the very least, vampires need a 5000 year lifespan.

[Thrawn]

right, but theoretically vampire could 'sleep' for a millennium, and then awaken very hungry but the same as before.

Except that they would die of starvation in their sleep.

[solsword]

Hmm... well, it's good to have more people commenting, but I think that people are missing the points a bit, which are twofold:

1. Anyone (such as Aethaeryn) who is going to go to the trouble to actually put a vampire in eir campaign/scenario/whatever gets broad powers to define what vampires are like. This thread is not about telling such a person what vampires in Wesnoth *should* be like. Instead, it's about offering suggestions and inspiration as to what vampires in Wesnoth *could* be like.

2. Vampires in real life mythology aren't very well defined. They're a nebulous, many-faceted concept. There are contradictory myths about them. If you're Malaysian, then a vampire might be a woman who's (mostly) disembodied head flies around at night trailing her guts, who uses said guts to strangle her victims before sucking out their blood with her fangs. If you're Bram Stoker, then a vampire is an irredeemably evil monster who preys upon young women and must be exterminated at all costs. If you're Stephenie Meyer, then vampires are... something else? (okay so I haven't actually read Twilight...)

In saying things like "here some info, there is no good vampires, its doesn't mean they totally evil," or "This is what makes vampires so fascinating, and much more interesting than liches or other creepy things--in becoming vampires, they lose part of their humanity--the need to survive usually overrides whatever moral beliefs they had," you're offering one take on vampires as "the truth about vampires" (although to be fair, Thrawn did start off saying that "vampires should"). Everyone has their own take on vampires, and, although I'm reluctant to use such a relativist phrase, *in this case*, no-one is right or wrong. Whoever puts vampires into a UMC campaign will be the best candidate for "right" as it exists in Wesnoth, and whoever puts vampires into a mainline campaign or unit description (or at least, puts more details about them in) will be "right" as far as canon is concerned.


Related to this second point: there's little hope of us *convincing* each other of anything. As an example of this: some of you seem to favor a version of the vampire that isn't inherently evil; a version where most vampires are evil due to their circumstances. I'm more in favor of vampires like those in Stoker's Dracula which *are* inherently (and unredeemably) evil. I'm willing to let some vampires be good through exceptional acts of strong will, but I don't want there to be any sympathy for run-of-the-mill vampires. This point is not one where either side is correct (at least until someone puts the details into Wesnoth canon) and isn't one where we'll convince each other through discussion. It's really a matter of personal preferences.

As a counterpoint, there's a very good chance of us *inspiring* each other. I really liked Aethaeryn's corrupt-faery explanation, and although I had my own take on that with my own set of traits, my version of the vampire is better than it would have been without this thread. Likewise, I think that Aethaeryn's ideas have evolved a little through discussion, and that productive discussion is what this thread is about.

So don't tell people what vampires in Wesnoth should be like, or even what you *want* them to be like (because that's an implicit request). Instead, tell people what you *imagine* them to be like, and why you think your version is cool, or tell people that you agree with what they imagine vampires to be like.

(I know that people have been doing some of this, and this is good! I just want to get away from the less constructive criticism. And I'm aware that I've probably been at least a little hypocritical so far in this thread, so I apologize if people felt like I was telling them how vampires should be.)

And finally, @Skrim: as far as I recall, Aethaeryn has been ambiguous on the plague-like part. Aethaeryn, you mentioned something about infection from exposure to the dark faery essence when attacked, but was that a *possible* explanation for conversion to vampirism by victims *if* you were going to include it, or was that just an explanation of how the conversion worked, because you were going to include it?